11/18/2011 @ 4:36PM50,462 views

America Before The Entitlement State

Reacting to calls for cuts in entitlement programs, House Democrat Henry Waxman fumed: “The Republicans want us to repeal the twentieth century.” Sound bites don’t get much better than that. After all, the world before the twentieth century–before the New Deal, the New Frontier, the Great Society–was a dark, dangerous, heartless place where hordes of Americans starved in the streets.

Except it wasn’t and they didn’t. The actual history of America shows something else entirely: picking your neighbors’ pockets is not a necessity of survival. Before America’s entitlement state, free individuals planned for and coped with tough times, taking responsibility for their own lives.

In the 19th century, even though capitalism had only existed for a short time, and had just started putting a dent in pre-capitalism’s legacy of poverty, the vast, vast majority of Americans were already able to support their own lives through their own productive work. Only a tiny fraction of a sliver of a minority depended on assistance and aid–and there was no shortage of aid available to help that minority.

But in a culture that revered individual responsibility and regarded being “on the dole” as shameful, formal charity was almost always a last resort. Typically people who hit tough times would first dip into their savings. They might take out loans and get their hands on whatever commercial credit was available. If that wasn’t enough, they might insist that other family members enter the workforce. And that was just the start.

“Those in need,” historian Walter Trattner writes, “. . . looked first to family, kin, and neighbors for aid, including the landlord, who sometimes deferred the rent; the local butcher or grocer, who frequently carried them for a while by allowing bills to go unpaid; and the local saloonkeeper, who often came to their aid by providing loans and outright gifts, including free meals and, on occasion, temporary jobs. Next, the needy sought assistance from various agencies in the community–those of their own devising, such as churches or religious groups, social and fraternal associations, mutual aid societies, local ethnic groups, and trade unions.”

One of the most fascinating phenomena to arise during this time were mutual aid societies–organizations that let people insure against the very risks that entitlement programs would later claim to address. These societies were not charities, but private associations of individuals. Those who chose to join would voluntarily pay membership dues in return for a defined schedule of benefits, which, depending on the society, could include life insurance, permanent disability, sickness and accident, old-age, or funeral benefits.

Mutual aid societies weren’t private precursors to the entitlement state, with its one-size-fits-all schemes like Social Security and Medicare. Because the societies were private, they offered a wide range of options to fit a wide range of needs. And because they were voluntary, individuals joined only when the programs made financial sense to them. How many of us would throw dollar bills down the Social Security money pit if we had a choice?

Only when other options were exhausted would people turn to formal private charities. By the mid-nineteenth century, groups aiming to help widows, orphans, and other “worthy poor” were launched in every major city in America. There were some government welfare programs, but they were minuscule compared to private efforts.

In 1910, in New York State, for instance, 151 private benevolent groups provided care for children, and 216 provided care for adults or adults with children. If you were homeless in Chicago in 1933, for example, you could find shelter at one of the city’s 614 YMCAs, or one of its 89 Salvation Army barracks, or one of its 75 Goodwill Industries dormitories.

“In fact,” writes Trattner, “so rapidly did private agencies multiply that before long America’s larger cities had what to many people was an embarrassing number of them. Charity directories took as many as 100 pages to list and describe the numerous voluntary agencies that sought to alleviate misery, and combat every imaginable emergency.”

It all makes you wonder: If Americans could thrive without an entitlement state a century ago, how much easier would it be today, when Americans are so rich that 95 percent of our “poor” own color TVs? But we won’t get rid of the entitlement state until we get rid of today’s widespread entitlement mentality, and return to a society in which individual responsibility is the watchword.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Why create a government enforced charity for seamen and not for everyone else? The founder’s mistake may have contributed to the immoral situation we find ourselves in today where those without are considered to have a claim over those who have without regard to personal virtue. An honest person who’s fallen on hard times will not seek charity at the point of a gun. The entitlement state implicates us all in a dishonest system that by its nature is doomed to failure – Greece’s insolvency, is the canary in the coal mine.

You wrote:” Why create a government enforced charity for seamen and not for everyone else? The founder’s mistake may have contributed to the immoral situation we find ourselves in today where those without are considered to have a claim over those who have without regard to personal virtue.”

First it must be noted that the original Marine Hospital Service was intended to be funded entirely by funds collected from the seamen themselves. So it was not a “charity” as you characterize it but a self-funding health insurance program. No “claim” placed on others.

Second, the founding fathers were of a more practical persuasion than you are it would seem. Their interest in the wellbeing seamen of a mercantile origin. They wished to encourage trade and that could not be done without ships and ships are just so much wood, nails, and hemp without seamen. The Founding Fathers recognized that being a seaman was a rough and dangerous job and that the nation as a whole would benefit if men were encouraged to become seamen or if already seamen, to come and work in the United States.

Even before independence was achieved the issue was being considered. A treaty with Spain was being considered. Mr. John Symmes of New Jersey addressed the Continental Congress August 18, 1786 in favor of the proposed treaty with Spain. ”The treaty proposed will give us a new staple by promoting the fisheries. It will encourage shipbuilding & the carrying trade & consequently encrease the number of seamen without which we cannot be secure or respectable. It is no objection with him that the immediate benefits will be reaped by one part of the Union. He considers it in a national view, & that the benefits reaped be [by] one member will redound to the advantage of the whole Union.”.

Without the hard work of the humble seamen, the soon-to-be United States could not be respectable or secure. Eleven years later, the Marine Hospital Service was created with exactly this thought in mind.

You also wrote: “An honest person who’s fallen on hard times will not seek charity at the point of a gun.”

This is just a bit much is it not? Who is pointing a gun at whom? Men who work very hard at a dangerous job which benefits the nation as a whole, when they were sick or injured, received aid from a hospital that they themselves funded. The Founding Fathers did nothing more than see that everyone would come out ahead if they used the power of government for the brooded possible good, a “win-win” in the modern parlance.

The Founding Fathers saw that a government run “Entitlement Program” could be good for all Americans – *Revolutionary* concept even today.

Let me start off by saying that I do not put the founders in the same category as modern entitlement statists. I think they would have been horrified at the path we’ve taken in the last hundred years.

The founders upheld the principle of individual rights which is the moral principle that each man owns his life. That principle is what defines America – what made us an exceptional – and very prosperous – nation.

The principal of individual rights has eroded over the last hundred years with the ascendancy of the contrary moral idea that man should exist to serve others. These two principles are not compatible. The idea of service has been inserted into the American consciousness under the guise of benevolence towards others. But there is a very important difference between benevolence and servility. A man who freely helps another through benevolence does not give up his status as a free man, a man or a nation that surrenders the principle of individual rights in the name of service to others is doomed.

Mr Brook is arguing for the principle of individual rights against servility in the guise of benevolence. So you may site a particular instance where government force has produced a “good” result. But step back and look at the issue as the clash of principles that it is.

You wrote:”The founders upheld the principle of individual rights which is the moral principle that each man owns his life. That principle is what defines America – what made us an exceptional – and very prosperous – nation.”

Except for all of those men (and women) whose lives were owned by other men. A very large percentage of the population were indentured servants and slaves. They of course were essential to creating the prosperity that this country enjoyed. Free labor could not be found in sufficient quantity and at low enough prices to create the same level of prosperity so unfree labor was needed.

So you see, as I noted above, the Founding Fathers were highly practical men. While they held to fine principles, they did not let those principles stand in the way of prosperity. When prosperity required creating a government created incentive (entitlement) to free labor to work on ships, they were all for it. When prosperity required a government enforced system of unfree labor, they were prepared to live with that.

While I am not opposed to looking at “general principles”, I think that it even more important to look at the practical day to day realities. Government “entitlement programs” did not fall out of the sky one fully formed or were constructed from “first principles” in some laboratory. They emerged through the changing needs of a complex society where conflicting interests clashed and compromises were reached.

In another part of my prior post (a part which you later cite in your response, but ignore) I write:

“But there was a lot of other such legislation that could have been passed, but was not.”

There were, in other words, surely many other people and groups of people besides seaman that could have been given assistance. In this way, the legislation for seamen — later expanded to included immigrants traveling on their ships — was “atypical.” And in responding to this point, you do not cite any other examples, you cite examples that serve only to demonstrate that, once begun, a government program lives and grows forever — or until the host body politic is no more.

You cite my statement about my not knowing why the founders would contradict the Constitution they had just ratified; you seem think that later legislation to address inadequate funding is an answer that statement; it isn’t. You go on to repeat other reasons given: 1- “sick and injured seamen could [in contrast to the rest of the population of persons in need] could not get relief by other means.” Now, why should this be so? What is it about seaman that make them different from others in this regard? More likely, this was a false crisis, manufactured to justify the government program; it’s the SOP for many such endeavors. Reason 2- “it was the long standing tradition.” This is not an answer to my point; it merely begs the question — why did such tradition begin in the first place?”

In another part of my prior post (which you do later cite in your response, but ignore) I write:

“But there was a lot of other such legislation that could have been passed, but was not.”

There were, in other words, surely many others besides seaman that could have been given assistance, but (with the later exception of immigrants who traveled with them) they were not. In this regard, the legislation was atypical, and, in your response, you cite no other examples that would refute this point.

You also comment on my statement that, given the Constitution they had just ratified, I didn’t know why they would pass such legislation. You seem to think that the passage of later legislation to address inadequate funding (where have I heard that phrase before?) is an answer to that statement; it isn’t.

You go on to cite reasons given by the advocates at the time: 1- “sick and injured seamen [in contrast to the rest of the population] could not get relief by other means.” Now, why should the seamen be a special case in this regard? That is, why is no relief available specifically to them? This sounds like a false crisis, manufactured for the purpose of passing the legislation — in many such endeavors, its SOP. 2- “…it was the long standing tradition…” This begs the question; why was it begun in the first place?

It is true that I ignored your sentence ““But there was a lot of other such legislation that could have been passed, but was not.”. This of course true but I do not see the significance to the issues at hand. My point is is that “entitlement programs” are not new and that the founding fathers were not against them per se. In fact, as my many citations make clear, this particular one enjoy the support of both Democrats and Federalists.

Now I suppose that your point is that they could have allowed more government run “entitlement programs” to exist and indeed they did. One was called “slavery” and an other was called “indentured servitude”. Under these programs some people were entitled to the labor and service of others, indeed under the slavery program the beneficiaries were entitled to the very bodies, families, and lives of the slaves. This program is enshrined in the very constitution in Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3 which requires that any slave or bound servant who escapes from a state participating in this program shall be forceable returned to the beneficiary of the program (aka slave owner) at tax payer expense even in states that did not participate in the program. This meant that the entire tax paying population was expected to financially support the property recovery needs of the program beneficiaries. A Fugitive Slave Act was passed not once (1793) but twice (1850).

So there were other “Entitlement Programs” created by the founding fathers.

You are correct that I had not directly addressed the motives of the founding fathers in creating the Marine Hospital Service. They wished to encourage trade and that could not be done without ships and ships are just so much wood, nails, and hemp without seamen. The Founding Fathers recognized that being a seaman was a rough and dangerous job and that the nation as a whole would benefit if men were encouraged to become seamen or if already seamen, to come and work in the United States.

Even before independence was achieved the issue was being considered. A treaty with Spain was being considered. Mr. John Symmes of New Jersey addressed the Continental Congress August 18, 1786 in favor of the proposed treaty with Spain. ”The treaty proposed will give us a new staple by promoting the fisheries. It will encourage shipbuilding & the carrying trade & consequently encrease the number of seamen without which we cannot be secure or respectable. It is no objection with him that the immediate benefits will be reaped by one part of the Union. He considers it in a national view, & that the benefits reaped be [by] one member will redound to the advantage of the whole Union.”.

Without the hard work of the humble seamen, the soon-to-be United States could not be respectable or secure. Eleven years later, the Marine Hospital Service was created with exactly this thought in mind.

In my response, I did not contest the fact of the legislation you cited, nor the support it enjoyed. I said it was “atypical.” It is the exception that proves the rule — it proves that such programs were not unheard of, but that, with the exception you cite, were rejected.

Instead of acknowledging this, you claim slavery and indentured servitude to be entitlement programs. By your rationale, you could call any enforcement of private property law (under the scope of such property at the time) and contract law to be an entitlement program; it isn’t. But you really know that, don’t you? Don’t you?

The historical rationale you cite for such legislation does not really answer my question regarding it. While a seaman life was surely hard and dangerous, a needy seaman is no different from someone else in need. The implicit proposition that seamen are more important to the nation than people on land who produce the goods that traded, or mothers and fathers that create those people, is simply rationalization.

Here is a little information on government and its growth that perfectly accords with the argument of the author.

How do you get things so wrong? Talk about a head of lettuce.

##### The federal government has grown substantially in the 20th century. In 1913, just prior to World War I, federal government expenditures were 2.5 percent of gross national product and by 1990 they had risen to 22.5 percent of GNP.

The relatively small size of the federal government before World War I shows that it exhibited minimal growth in the 19th century, in stark contrast with its tremendous growth in the 20th century.

#### and at

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_history

#### Government Spending started out at the beginning of the 20th century at 6.9 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). As you can see from Chart 1, the federal share of that spending was modest. But it was not to last. Spending got a big kick in World war I and ended up at about 12 percent of GDP in the 1920s.

Then came the Great Depression, in which famously President Roosevelt and the New Deal cranked spending up to 20 percent of GDP. World War II really showed how the United States could commandeer its national resources for all out war. Government spending peaked at just under 53 percent of GDP in 1945.

Government spending on education has expanded from about one percent of GDP in 1900 to 7 percent in the second decade of the 21st century.

Defense spending in the United States has fluctuated in the last century, rising from one percent of GDP, peaking at 42 percent in World War II, declining from 10 percent in the Cold War​ to five percent today.

Government spending on education has expanded from about one percent of GDP in 1900 to 7 percent in the second decade of the 21st century.

overnment did not intervene significantly in the provision of health care until the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in the mid 1960s. Since then government health care has increased to around 7 percent of GDP. #### and at :